Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Labor Arbiter Cenozares granted Youngs motion to transfer the case in Cebu. Petitioner
appealed to NLRC but such was dismissed. Hence, they filed a MFR and this time the
commission set aside its previous decision and remanded the case to the original arbitration
branch of the NCR for further proceedings. On the other hand, Young filed his own MFR and the
NLRC reinstated its first decision directing the transfer of the case to Cebu City.
ISSUE:
Whether the Labor Arbiter acted with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained
Youngs motion to transfer.
HELD:
No.
The SC ruled that litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and
not on technicalities. Petitioners were able to file an opposition on the motion to transfer case
which was considered by Labor Arbiter Cenizares. Hence, there is no showing that they have
been unduly prejudiced by the motions failure to give notice and hearing.
However, Young cannot derive comfort from this petition. The SC held that the question
of venue relates more to the convenience of the parties rather than upon the substance and merits
of the case. This is to assure convenience for the plaintiff and his witness and to promote the
ends of justice under the principle that the state shall afford protection to labor. The reason for
this is that the worker, being the economically-disadvantaged party, the nearest governmental
machinery to settle the dispute must be placed at his immediate disposal, and the other party is
not to be given the choice of another competent agency sitting in another place as this will
unduly burden the former.
WHEREFORE, petition is granted.